by Terri Jo Neff | Apr 17, 2021 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
The Maricopa County Community College District’s (MCCCD) decision last month to approve a $155,000 settlement to a Scottsdale Community College professor ensures the district, the college, and staff members will not be sued for how they handled an Islamic student’s complaint against the professor.
Nicholas Damask received the payout in response to an October 2020 notice of claim against college officials who publicly criticized the longtime professor’s curriculum in a World Politics course. A notice of claim is mandated by state law before a lawsuit can be initiated against the state or any political subdivision, including boards, commissions, committees, and districts.
Damask has agreed to not make negative statements about District employees nor how they handled the student’s April 2020 complaint about quiz questions related to terrorism and Islam. His attorney was to receive $30,000 of the settlement, public records show.
In a related matter, a federal lawsuit filed by the student in June 2020 against Damask and the District in an effort to stop the professor from teaching about negative aspects of Islam was dismissed by Judge Susan Brnovich of the U.S. District Court. The lawsuit alleged the professor required students to express agreement with anti-Islam views in order to receive a passing grade.
An appeal of the dismissal is pending at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The District has until April 23 to file its response and Damask has a May 21 deadline.
Damask’s initial claim against MCCCD sought $500,000 based on his contention that Scottsdale Community College officials placed the professor’s reputation in question by not doing enough to defend him against the student’s allegations. The claim also cited concerns for the safety of Damask and his family stemming from threats stoked by the controversy.
Within days of the student’s complaint -which was fueled by social media attention- the college president publicly apologized for the professor’s conduct, disparaged the quiz questions, and said Damask would issue an apology. However, MCCCD Interim Chancellor Steven Gonzales contradicted the college president by issuing an apology to Damask.
Gonzales also bemoaned Scottsdale Community College’s “rush to judgment” undertaken without “full consideration for our professor’s right of academic freedom.”
In response to the student’s complaint, Damask argued that the disputed questions dealt specifically with a section of the coursework about terroristic sects within Islam. Similar sects in other religions were also covered in the class, he said.
One outcome of Damask pushing back on how the student’s complaint was handled is that district officials undertook a review of policies and training for how to respond to such matters. That review led to plans to establish a Committee on Academic Freedom.
The settlement also restates that faculty members will have the freedom to choose the materials they use with a course curriculum.
by AZ Free News | Apr 17, 2021 | News
PHOENIX – The state Senate on Wednesday unanimously approved HB 2168, legislation which requires law enforcement agencies in Arizona to collect data on use-of-force incidents involving officers and to report it annually to the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC) and the FBI’s National Use of Force Data Collection.
The bill requires ACJC to develop data collection standards and reporting guidelines on use-of-force incidents, and to publicly publish data that was reported during the previous year.
The bill prohibits including any identifying information about a law enforcement officer in the reported use-of-force data.
HB 2168 was passed by the House in February and will now be transmitted to the governor.
by Terri Jo Neff | Apr 16, 2021 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
On Feb. 12, 2019, Pat Call had been serving on the Cochise County Board for more than a decade representing for the Sierra Vista area, which includes the Army’s Fort Huachuca. It was also the day Call and his two fellow supervisors took part in a public and then a private meeting which ended with his appointment as justice of the peace of the Sierra Vista Justice Court.
The new job paid twice Call’s supervisor salary despite the fact he was not an attorney and had no judicial experience. But there was no advance public notice that Call was even interested in the position, and during the meeting Call suggested the board not utilize a nomination committee to review any perspective candidates, all of whom were lawyers with experience in justice court operations.
The Arizona Supreme Court announced Wednesday that it will hear a local resident’s challenge to Call’s appointment based on alleged violations of Arizona’s Open Meeting Law and Conflict of Interest Statute. The case is being watched by public agencies and government attorneys across the state.
“When it comes to holding public officials accountable for backdoor deals, this is the most important case in Arizona history,” appellate attorney David Abney said after the justices accepted the case for review.
Abney is one of three attorneys representing David Welch, the Sierra Vista resident who challenged the appointment. He told AZ Free News it does not matter that Call’s term on the bench ended in December 2020.
“There are still penalties and sanctions that can be assessed against those who violate the open-meeting and conflict-of-interest laws,” Abney said. “So Justice of the Peace Call’s departure does not insulate him or his collaborators from liability.”
The county defendants contend they did nothing improper in filling the court vacancy, and point to the fact the Cochise County Attorney’s Office provided legal advice throughout the process.
“The Arizona Legislature has made clear that, for a plaintiff making claim to a private right of action under Arizona’s conflict of interest or open meeting laws, he or she must be ‘affected by’ the alleged violation,” according to the county’s petition for review to the supreme court. The county contends Welch has no standing to challenge the board’s action.
Welch lives within the boundaries of the Sierra Vista Justice Court and had a misdemeanor case pending at the court at the time of Call’s appointment. His case would have been heard by Call, but the county attorney’s office had the case dismissed the day Call took office.
The county later invoked the ratification option in Arizona’s Open Meeting Law to reaffirm Call’s appointment as justice of the peace during a special meeting in March 2019. Welch, however, takes the position shared by Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich that the supervisors may still be open to personal liability if it is shown they engaged in misconduct.
But it is not only the open meeting law issues that Welch has challenged.
Public records show Call engaged in discussions about how to fill the court vacancy he was awarded a few hours later. He also took part in an executive session with the other supervisors, a deputy county attorney, and the county administrator just before being appointed.
Arizona’s conflict of interest statute requires a public officer who has a substantial interest in any decision of a public agency to make known such interest. Then the public officer “shall refrain from participation in any manner…in such decision.”
There is no ratification option in that statute to simply “do-over” or reaffirm a decision.
A judge from outside Cochise County initially dismissed Welch’s complaints on the basis of a lack of standing to bring the challenges. That ruling was overturned in a unanimous Arizona Court of Appeals decision in October 2020, which sent the case back to the lower court for a new hearing on Welch’s arguments.
For now the case is on hold while the supreme court reviews the appellate decision. Attorney Chris Russell has been on Welch’s case from the beginning and understands some residents are frustrated the case has been going on more than two years with no immediate end in sight. But he is looking forward to the attention the Arizona Supreme Court’s review will generate.
“Corruption thrives in the darkness,” Russell said. “Without open and transparent government free from conflicts-of-interest we are no better than a cabal run by the rich and powerful. History has proven that such a circumstance is always detrimental to the people.”
The supreme court has given the parties until early May to file any updated legal briefings before oral arguments are conducted later this year.
by AZ Free News | Apr 16, 2021 | News
PHOENIX — This week, Governor Doug Ducey signed Senate Bill (SB) 1451, legislation which expands workers’ compensation for diseases presumed to be a result of Arizona’s firefighters and fire investigators’ job demands and requirements.
The bill strengthens the presumption that a firefighter’s cancer diagnosis is work related thereby ensuring that more firefighters are eligible for worker’s compensation and can spend more time focusing on their health and family and less time fighting with cities and insurance companies for their benefits.
This bill also protects female firefighters and fire investigators by adding breast cancer and ovarian cancer to the list of qualifying cancers to ensure that they have access to the same benefits and protections as their male co-workers.
Previously, to qualify for the presumption, a firefighter or peace officer must have passed a physical examination before employment that did not indicate evidence of cancer, been assigned to hazardous duty for at least five years, and documented with the department an exposure to a known carcinogen that is reasonably related to cancer. Firefighters were burdened with identifying exactly when and where they were exposed to a carcinogen that caused their cancer, which is why SB 1451 removes that specific requirement.
by Corinne Murdock | Apr 15, 2021 | Education, News
By Corinne Murdock |
Wednesday, the House passed a bill requiring schools to have parents’ written consent before teaching Sex Education to students. Rather than having parents opt their children out of Sex Ed curriculum, this legislation requires schools to have parents opt in their children.
The bill passed along party lines, with only one Democratic representative abstaining their vote: State Representative Denise “Mitzi” Epstein (D-Tempe).
Summarily, the bill prohibits schools from providing Sex Ed to any students below the fifth grade – including education on AIDS and HIV. It would also require schools to make all Sex Ed curriculum available for parental review two weeks in advance, at minimum.
Under the bill, schools may or may not choose to implement a Sex Ed curriculum. If they do, the bill would simply require them to prioritize parental consent and communication, and those schools would have the option for state-level health or education officials to review the materials. It would also require that AIDS and HIV education be grade-level appropriate, promote abstinence, discourage drug use, and dispel myths of HIV transmission.
The legislation also requires that all committee meetings to develop, adopt, revise, or update Sex Ed courses be open to the public. Additionally, all materials must be made available and two public hearings must occur at least 60 days prior to any approval of materials.
Both Arizona House and Senate Democrats tweeted against the passage of the bill.
“This bill is a huge step back from the progress Arizona made in 2019 when we removed barriers for LGBTQ+ representation in schools. This bill makes all HIV/AIDS instruction opt-in, labeling this important education as taboo & only available via a permission slip,” wrote the Arizona Senate Democrats.
Neither the House or Senate GOP or the bill’s sponsor, State Senator Nancy Barto (R-Phoenix), published remarks on social media regarding the passage of this bill. Barto did tell reporters in an emailed statement that this served as a victory for parents’ rights.
“Parents should not have to worry about what schools are teaching their children about human sexuality,” stated Barto. “Too often parents learn after the fact that explicit or controversial materials were presented without their knowledge or consent.”
As AZ Free News reported previously, the Senate passed the bill early last month. Testimonies presented during committee hearings relayed a variety of issues. These included schools telling children that sex education classes are mandatory, refusing to share curriculum materials with parents, or circumventing parental notification on certain materials like “Genderbread.”
The legislation will now heads to Governor Doug Ducey. If signed into law as written, schools would have until December 15 of this year to comply.
The Arizona School Board Association condemned the bill’s passage as an effort to “undermine the authority of school boards. However, nothing in the bill prohibits school boards from approving curriculum. It merely sets a grade-level requirement and provides parents with an opportunity to exercise their authority over their own children.
Corinne Murdock is a contributing reporter for AZ Free News. In her free time, she works on her books and podcasts. Follow her on Twitter, @CorinneMurdock or email tips to corinnejournalist@gmail.com.
by Terri Jo Neff | Apr 15, 2021 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
The Arizona Supreme Court has been asked to review a decision by the Sedona-Oak Creek Airport Authority to evict a longtime leasee in a nearly decade-long dispute that has involved a federal judge, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the expenditure of hundreds of thousands for legal services.
In April 2019, the Airport Authority initiated eviction action against Dakota Territory Tours ACC, which has operated at the airport for several years. The company also operates as Sedona Air Tours and Red Rock Biplane Tours.
Dakota Territory has specialized in air tours of the Grand Canyon area since 1994 with fixed wing aircraft and helicopters, many which can seat four to six passengers. The Airport Authority contends Dakota Territory has not had a valid sublease at the airport since July 2017 and has attempted to evict the company since then, but various legal actions have delayed the action.
A Yavapai County judge put the 2019 eviction action on hold while the parties litigated whether Dakota was lawfully present at the airport. The court’s decision came down against the company, and in January of this year the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court ruling.
A petition for review was filed by Dakota Territory with the Arizona Supreme Court in February, and the Airport Authority has submitted a response. If the justices decide to hear the case it would likely be months before a decision is issued.
According to public records, the Sedona-Oak Creek Airport is situated on land owned by Yavapai County, although the county plays a limited role in what happens there. Instead, the Airport Authority leases the property from the county for $1 per year and runs the day-to-day operations under the supervision of an airport director.
Dakota Territory Tours’s dispute with the Airport Authority can be traced back to a 2012 sublease which allowed the company to fly in and out of the airport. A series of amendments kept the sublease in effect through April 2017 at which time the deal was kept in effect per a settlement agreement between Dakota and the Airport Authority in connection to a lawsuit the company filed in 2014.
Part of the agreement called for Dakota to continue to use its space while the Airport Authority put together a formal Request for Proposals (RFP) for that space.
Then in June 2017, the Airport Authority awarded the sublease for tour company space to Guidance Air Service LLC, another longtime leasee. The award made Guidance the only air tour company that would operate at the airport without paying high airport use-fees.
Less than 10 minutes after the RFP was awarded to Guidance, an attorney for the Airport Authority sent Dakota a letter demanding the company vacate its leased space within 30 days.
Dakota protested the award, alleging Airport Director Amanda Shankland altered the selection criteria at the last minute and accepted Guidance’s bid even though it would purportedly provide 32 percent less in revenues for the airport. The company also alleged the RFP process was “rigged” to ensure no air tour provider other than Guidance could emerge the winner.
Shankland denied Dakota’s allegations and rejected the challenge, arguing that the airport could not support more than one air tour operator.
In August 2017, Dakota and a partner company sued the non-profit Airport Authority, Yavapai County, Guidance, and Shankland in federal court. The anti-trust lawsuit alleged the Airport Authority lodged a false complaint with the FAA against about the company and failed to comply with the settlement of Dakota’s 2014 complaint.
The federal lawsuit also alleged the airport’s Master Plan allowed for more than one tour operator, and that the RFP process “was intended to and will ultimately foreclose and end competition” for airport-based air tours of the Sedona area.
A federal judge in Prescott dropped Yavapai County and Guidance from Dakota’s lawsuit in 2018, but allowed the claims against the Airport Authority and Shankland to move forth. In April 2019, that same judge dismissed the case per a stipulation among the remaining parties, “with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees in this action.”
With the federal case dismissed, there was nothing stopping the Airport Authority from moving forward with enforcing the 30-day vacate notice through a forcible detainer action with the Yavapai County Superior Court. By then, a number of concerns had been documented in various court files.
For instance, the Airport Authority presented an independent consultant to provide expert testimony to support one of its arguments against Dakota. However, neither the expert nor the Authority revealed to the court that the expert was affiliated with Guidance.
There is also a record showing the complaint made to the FAA about Dakota was found to be unsubstantiated. And that if Dakota could no longer be based at the Sedona airport then the company would have had to pay the Airport Authority for every takeoff and landing at a non-leasee level.
That would have cost Dakota, which employed about 20 people, to pay about $45,000 per month, based on its late 2018 to early 2019 flights.
If the Arizona Supreme Court refuses to hear Dakota’s appeal then the company will be responsible for paying the Airport Authority’s legal expenses related to the eviction action.
